+1 Steel Tomb and Mr Beast :up:

For what its worth since this topic is slowly fading. Im of the believe we had a presence to maintain in the middle east and bombing the snot out of Saddam was part of it. Im certain Arabic and Kuwaiti stablity was part of it aswell for it would have been disasterous for the ruling families of these countries if they attacked thier own. Unfortunetly I don't think we knew enough of the culture to make what we did stick. We have shown weakness in front of the enemy we will soon regret it.

Iran is an evil country and we should go in and nuke the snot outta them as well just like we did in Iraq. But this time show no mercy and give no quarter. Saddam and other Middle Eastern leaders knew that we should've done the same. If it mean't wiping them off the face of the earth in order for me to get on with my life in peace then so be it.

What was the real reason we went in? I don't know, but I don't think it had all to do with WMDs alone. Frankly I think it was a feeble excuse to instill fear into the American population, to make sending our troops in an easier pill to swallow. But whatever the reason next time finish it, fast, decisive. When someone like the little man from Iran starts telling me he wants to drive my friend and allie into the sea I want to plant my foot in his arse somthing fierce.

we now return you to your regularly scheduled topics and other rants

Woo!

Woo!

What's to stop someone else using this kind of logic? Maybe one of those evil people I've heard so much about?

Raining yellow rain! Don't eat the yellow snow either!:D

Nothing. But since we aren't screwing around and killing them terrorist style, then there is not reason to use it on us! :D

-S

PS. THe irony on this board is that it seems like it is OK, or marginally OK to blow up innocent Western women and children, yet not OK to go after the people that did it? Are you guys all nuts?

I haven't seen anyone suggest or insinuate that the killing of western women and children is acceptable. Niether has anyone said that the pursuit of terrorists is 'not ok'.

Its interesting though that some posters seem to suggest that the death of Muslim women and children wouldn't be so bad. :roll: :nope:

No, but it is implied when they talk of the US going after them....

Its not if they are the ones carrying bombs. Also, sometimes civilians are causulties of war, and even though the US takes great care not to harm civilians, they are never even given credit for that. The US is not required by the Geneva convention to avoid civilian causuaties, so where is their credit?

-S

I'm afraid I still don't see where anyone has implied that killing western civilians is acceptable. Can you give some examples?

The vast majority of women and children killed are not carriyng bombs though.

If you were an Iraqi and your family was accidentally killed buy US troops you would be satisfied with 'sorry sometimes civilians are casuaties of war'?

Its easy to just pass off the deaths of innocent civilians as collateral damage.

There are many occasions where US troops have takan little or no care to avoid civillian casuaties.

Talk to the Nazi's. Talk to the families of 9/11. Talk to the families of the USS Cole. I'd even venture to say that US troops only account for 1 in 1000 civi deaths in Iraq, and it was only accideent where your friggen Muslims are responsible for the other 999, so yeah, I'd say that these people know the US troops are there to do some good.

So I don't buy your argument for a grain of salt. It doesn't hold up to the 999 holes in the bag you are selling, leaving it worthless.

-S

It may have something to do with with the Shi'ite majority in Iraq electing them.

PD

I still cant believe they're called Shi'ite.

:lol:

I'd just like to add a little bit of English irony to the whole 'why the Eye-Rak thing happened' debate. One of the things that really pissed me off about the duff/manufactured intel rationale for going to war bit is that Tony F*ing Blair went along with it thinking he could get something in return from GWB, i.e. a resolution to the Israel/Palestinian thing. How stupid can you get???? :damn: And the irony? Now he's no longer prime minister, Blair is some sort of Middle East peace envoy. :rotfl: What a prat. I never thought I'd say something like that about a leader of my beloved Labour Party, but it's the only conclusion you can reach. Think I'll go hit some tonnage.